I actually heard nothing about soc 119 before I took the class. Now that I am in it it seems that all of my friends and classmates knew about it. So, one thing I got out of this class was that I was put in the loop. I can now relate to others who have or are currently taking the class. The class also gave me an opportunity to assess my own moral values and my contributions to society. I am a premed major and I normally don't get the time to stop and think during classes. Sitting in soc I was able to stop and think the entire time about life, I wasn't frantically taking notes or trying to memorize information. I enjoyed the opportunity to go to small discussion groups and speak one on one with my classmates. Being forced to do this also helped me assess myself. I found myself speaking a lot during the discussion groups so I decided towards the end of the semester to stop. Just to see what happens. I wanted to see a discussion group with little or no input from my thoughts and I found this to be enlightening (to some degree). The opinions people had to share seemed based very much so on one particular instance rather than the whole picture. This was very odd because it seems that many people in the class hang on every word that Sam says. Sam taught most of the time based on statistics and he told us that as a sociologist he based his findings on large scale studies. I also enjoyed all of the connections made with people from other countries and of different races and nationalities. I love meeting new people and I feel like it broadens your social ability. People who function well in the social climate succeed in the world. Not to mention this class really stressed the importance of empathy. This empathy is the root of solving many of the world's problems. I definitely see the importance of skyping with Iran. People need to understand that the government does not represent all of the people living there. With that being said, I felt that most people in the class didn't know much about Iran to begin with.. not even what the media portrayed. This is scary to me, that people can be that ignorant to what is happening around them. I admit that I am at fault to, we live in a bubble and as long as it doesn't affect our daily routine, we tend to not notice things happening around us. This brings me to the most important part of the class. That is our current world. As a science major I don't get many classes that teach politics or information on the current state of people in the world. All the knowledge I have I need to acquire on my free time.

I think that in general women don't talk to a one night stand about having an orgasm because of society constraints. Women are likely uncomfortable disclosing this information in fear of being labeled a whore. Not only that but men are the most likely sexual predators. Information that is private about your sex life is difficult to share with a guy that you just met. As a guy I have trouble telling people that I just met about my sex life. I feel like it is a breach of privacy to tell people how many partners I have had because it is often followed up with the question of who they were. This corners me into a situation where I am no longer trust worthy. I think that many women are silenced by society because they don't want to feel inadequate to their man. Even more so I think they don't want him to feel inadequate. This would explain the crazy high number of women who fake orgasms during sex. Also, it is not as obvious when women orgasm then men. It is near impossible to fake a guy's orgasm so it makes a good boundary for the act of sex to be finished. With women the orgasm is much more subtle. Aside from contractions due to sensitivity of the clitoris there isn't much of a sign (these can also be faked). i think more men would try harder to please the woman that they are with if women stopped acting like they were climaxing when they weren't. Most guys don't go into sex wanting to please only themselves. It is almost a measure of manhood in today's society to be able to please women. I agree that this would make guys feel inadequate or self conscious but, it will also make them realize that they need to change. This can show them that if they want to please a woman they need to pay attention to what she needs for that to happen. Talking about not having an orgasm can more comfortably be said after sex (first time with the partner) but showing him that he isn't getting you off during will likely have a bigger impact. Most guys like to think they are a stud and know how to please women but, if they are shown that they aren't they may change their approach to sex all together.
I think that males tend not to ask the question of whether or not she had an orgasm because they believe she did. It is kind of portrayed in the media as we discussed in class that males and females always climax together. That coupled with women acting like they are enjoying themselves as much as the men, the thought of their orgasm doesn't even cross the guys mind. It's not that the guys are afraid to ask the question usually, it's just that they don't think to. i can also understand if a guy is afraid to ask the question. Especially if he is new to sex and doesn't know what a real orgasm looks like, he may be afraid of sounding foolish.

I don't really think that most people have no power to do anything. I'm not sure why this was an accepted assumption in our the class. We are supposed to be living in a democracy. We out number those "in power" so how are we helpless? We choose who we vote for and we choose what corporations we give funding to. I think that "not judging" people isn't going to change anything. At least people that judge are bringing attention to the fact that there is a large wealth gap in the US. Ignoring the problem is not going to convince the large majority of us (the "powerless" ones) to force a change in our economy. Also, the majority of people that think they are powerless aren't going to do anything because they think they can't. Who causes revolutions and the reformation of every country in existence? Your telling me that those people have no power? Just by looking into the situation a little further it is obvious that this is not true. It is also important to realize that people do have some influence on their own live and there is predisposing factors that contribute to where people are at in life. It is also important to not be pessimistic. It seemed like a lot of the conversation in this class was very pessimistic. Different people have different ideas of happiness and there is ways to achieve what they want in any situation. With a lot of hard work and a stroke of good fortune of course. If you are not satisfied with where you are at in life i believe you should stay hopeful and focused. That is the best chance you will have to change your life. I also do not like the mothers attitude in that video we watched. She belittled herself and her son and that is wrong. It would be a different story if she was happy about where she was at but she wasn't. I came from a family of six kids with a father driving a delivery truck to pay his way through college and a mother trying to raise us in Long Island NY. I could tell you guys countless stories of shitty cars and apartment buildings falling apart in dirty conditions that I have experienced but, I'm not about to act like I was the poorest person in the world like some of my classmates seem to have been doing. This is because even though I experienced all of that I know that the poorest in the US are still the richest in the world. My parents wouldn't take welfare as well but, they always told us we could do anything we wanted. My dad worked his ass off and we moved a good 11 times or so when he was chasing work.. I only ever saw him on the weekends as well but he did it. He now makes over 200K and was eligible for loans for all six kids to go to college. Everyone agrees that the system doesn't work and it is designed to keep people down but, look at my life. I can't believe that these people have no hope. My definition of success is my family's happiness. If I can make enough money to take their financial stresses away I will be more than happy with where I am at.

I absolutely believe that benefits given to women because they are women helps their children and families. That seems like a no-brainer. If a woman is given extra money she will use it to improve her quality of life most likely. Even if her kids or husband never see any of it, her being happier will improve the lives of every person she has a relationship with. I think that we have to use affirmative action only because we are using it in other places. No matter what groups you give more money to there will be somebody somewhere who will have to get the short end of the stick because of it. Getting back to our women example, There will be guys that will have to pay that tax money and not get it back for themselves like the women would. As I have said before in these blogs, I am pretty conservative. So less government control is better. Maybe if another interest group, we'll say scholarships for minorities, wasn't existent then women wouldn't be hurt by their tax dollars leaving them and they wouldn't need affirmative action in the first place. The distribution of wealth in our society is deeply rooted in law to favor different groups. The only way to completely eradicate this is to abandon all law completely and start again. Since I don't see an american revolution coming the best we can do is try to compensate using other affirmative action. Don't get me wrong, I don't want a revolution involving violence. This pursuit of equality for all is nothing short of a distant dream. We can do the best we can which I believe we should but, we need to more carefully pick our actions. Affirmative action is largely influenced by the tiny percent of the population that controls most of the nations wealth. This was very clear in the article we read about the privately owned prisons. Most people don't want to give up their quality of life to help those who have less than they have. This is another reason why the push towards equality is slow. I think that it is a good thing that we can be accepting of people from all races but I don't think the government should be able to divide up our money and select certain groups of people to give it to. Giving someone a scholarship because of their ethnic background is racist. It should solely be based on who needs it. We are supposed to be a melting pot breaking down barriers between races. We have done this in recent history and I am very proud of that. The majority of americans see all races as equal. This concept is still a big struggle in many areas of the world including Europe. I do believe this is something we can share to make the world a better place just like there is many things that we can take from the rest of the world and adopt into our society to make it a better place. The point I am getting at is that we have decided that we are all equal here in the US, don't let our government divide us back up by giving certain races better treatment. Give the affirmative action to those who need it.

I think the fact that women are uncomfortable talking about their period or anything that has to do with genitalia is pointless. The idea that words are inappropriate in society only gives them power. I will get back to that point. First, I would like to say that I feel this problem may be getting better in our society. This is shown by the fact that there is often tampon and feminine hi-gene commercials on TV. forty years ago this was much different. Also, people are more regularly open when they interact in social settings about their feminine stuff. Getting back to the relation with any inappropriate words, these are also becoming more acceptable in society. Curse words are being used more on TV, radio, and movies. The younger generations are incorporating them into everyday speech. This trend is also being reflected in other aspects of life like nudity and violence in movies, video games etc. I am personally pretty conservative (the "real kind" kind as Sam refers to it) and I view this change as a good thing. I believe that people should be able to make their own choices on what they do and watch. I also believe in desensitization. It's a proven technique actively used in psycho therapy. The more we are exposed to words, the less meaning they have. This also works with broader topics like talking about genitals. The bottom line is people (me, you, everybody) shouldn't take offense to what people say. If you don't let what people say to you bother you there will be no effect on you. If it doesn't hurt you people will abandon it as a powerful term. I think it's very immature and close minded to take offense to something that you know is being said in a non-offensive manor. Taking offense to these things is hurting yourself and the history of your family or whatever group it is targeted at. The "dirty" words are not going away. It's not like if you avoid saying it because people are taking offense to it that people will just forget they exist. This has not been possible since the beginning of written history. Not desensitizing yourself gives people who mean to hurt you with these words power. It's like a rabbit making shells for a small game hunter. I do think that sexual talking is somewhat different than racial slurs and such but it still can be used in a similar fashion. It seems that many people are more open to being more accepting of sexual talking than they are of any other type of desensitization. It's somewhat disturbing to me that so many people go through life without thinking about this and applying this to their lives. At this rate it will take a long time to breakdown our "racial" and social barriers. I would much rather see more of the change in my lifetime when I can enjoy it. A happier society and a more understanding society is what I want to see.

I think this question can be answered plain and simple. The majority of people in our immediate culture don't believe it could happen nor would they ever give a second though to it. To go a little deeper, we do believe in reincarnation in general as a western society. Most of us believe that Jesus retook his body, walked around for a couple days and then ascended to heaven. We just don't believe that normal people can do it. When any notion of it is brought up we immediately shoot it down. We do this because we would probably be labeled as crazy for believing it. The majority of people who believe in reincarnation in our society are whack jobs that want to be a tree or something. That's immediately what everyone would label you, hands down, no questions asked. As a society, and this is probably true for the whole world, we reject things we don't understand. We don't even give them a chance. This is understandable because it was a selective advantage. If you stay away from things you don't understand the better chance you have of living. The longer you live the more chance there is to pass your seed on. This is the definition of natural selection in laments terms. If we lived in say India, or somewhere where this is more prevalent we wouldn't be so skeptical. This is just because we would be more used to it and it would be more familiar to us. I think it's interesting that in yesterday's class, when he was talking about this and life after death in general, everybody wanted to know the statistics behind it. They wanted to know where he got the information from and if they can trust it. This shows me that people are taking something from this class, and that is life after death is really important. The questions to what it is is really important and people just don't realize this. All of my points were demonstrated in this lecture because every single question or comment about reincarnation was skeptical. When Sam talked about life after death in general about half of the comments were skeptical and half were just things people thought was necessary to add to the conversation. This shows how skeptical western society is over reincarnation. I myself am naturally skeptical. I can believe the eight or so things everyone sees when they die because that is what i was taught at a young age and what I have believed in my whole life. I also had no trouble believing about "out of body" experiences. This is because I had one myself but, when he mentioned reincarnation was happening with young children I did not want to accept it. I immediately thought about how easy it would be to fabricate a back story for your child. Tell them the that they lived another life and give them details that they can repeat back to researchers. People will do anything for a little fame or a little money. It's hard for me to be objective because that isn't a society I was raised in.

I believe that people are often quick to fight against someone because they label their view. For example, if a creationist says that they are a creationist to an evolutionist and they automatically take opposing sides. I think that a lot of the time they have really similar views. Since people are so quick to fight against each other they never get to see these similarities. In my opinion there is no reason that evolution and creation can't coexist. The bible has been written rewritten and been interpreted by man throughout history. God, the supreme being created the creatures of the earth and many of them changed over time. A lot of creationists tend to think that there was not time for a lot of change because the earth was created in seven days. At the time the bible was written people's perception of time was different and there was no direct translation for the time period allotted. Without that time constraint, what else differs between creation and evolution? Unless you are arguing semantics like, whether God created everything in its present form or not, there is no reason to think that both had happened. In my view I believe evolution is right to an extent. We can see and there is evidence of creatures filling selective niches because of natural selection. Still, I don't believe that people came from chimps. I just don't understand how that can be part of this evolutionary theory. It's hard to say that one species diverged into two because it would require either two babies born of a species that have the same genetic defects rendering them of being incapable to mate with any of their own species, but still each other or groups of members of a species would have to be separated long enough for genetic mutations to make them incapable of mating with the other members of its species. The genetic eve is from west Africa where chimps still live in the wild so the second possibility couldn't have happened. Also we have been using carbon dating to support this theory. It is crazy to think that carbon deteriorates at a constant rate for millions of years because we have only been observing it age for sixty years or so. There is a big difference there and based on everything else that ages in this material world it is effected by the environment that it is in. Getting back to my original point people should be willing to coexist in order to grow. People can learn so much from each other if they just open up and observe the similarities. I think that Sam is trying to convey a similar message in this class. He showed us that most of us actually do believe in a creation evolution hybrid in our class.

The young Iranian woman was a little uneasy talking and being open with the class. I apologize if any of this is offensive because it is not meant to be but, it is very conflicting with the rest of the posts in this blog. That being said, we are almost at war with each other. Being uncomfortable is something that is not avoidable. The situation we are in is very similar to that of the situation we were in with Iraq before we went to war. I would like to ask her the question, "what would happen if I (a US citizen) stood up in a classroom with 900+ students in Iran and said I was from the US?" Would I be hated? Most likely, they probably would act on that hatred and it would be a very dangerous situation to be in. I'm not saying everyone would be that close minded but, I feel sort of offended by the way she thinks we act. I believe the majority of people here are more than understanding and reasonable. Of course there is a negative connotation on a country that is almost at war with us. I am naturally more careful and less trusting of people from Iran. It's not because I think everyone there is evil and I am not racist. I just do it for my own protection. There is more of a chance that someone who just came here from Iran will have resentment towards me than any other immigrants.
I also don't believe that "governments" are the only ones at war here, or that the people have to suffer the consequences of their government’s decisions. This is partially true but the people out number the government. Ultimately they have the last word. It is a tough part of human history to deal with but revolution makes the world a better place. If people suffer because of their government's actions, they have the ability to overthrow it. It has happened numerous times in the past and I believe that if the people overthrew the government now the US would provide support. We have done this many other times in the Middle East. The retired navy seal sort of hinted to this in his closing statement.
He also said that they were better off in some situations not fully trusting the people they were surrounded by. This is because you can have empathy for them and know what you would do in that situation. I show caution around Iranian's because I know if I was in their shoes and in America I would likely see Americans as the enemy.
It may not be fair to assume all of this or politically correct. It may be offensive to her but I really don't care. We are almost at war with that country and I will take whatever precautions I can to keep me and my family safe. She needs to empathize with us (US citizens) a little and understand where we are coming from. It is easy to point the finger at the American citizens because you are the minority and won't likely be called out on it. in a perfect world both sides would be more understanding of how the other feels. The theme of the lecture was empathy and both sides need to show some.

I believe it is natural for people to judge other people on the way they look before they see how they act. This was an important advantage evolutionary to keep people alive. These traits are no longer necessary to keep people alive in most parts of the world. People will someday realize this and hopefully judge people's character more on how they act rather than how they look. I think that if people spend enough time around someone they will eventually judge them based on how they act. The way people dress also influences how others view them. One example that demonstrates this is that there are people who are not very dark skinned. If they dress like the stereotypical white person people will view them as white. If they dress like a stereotypical black person people tend to consider them a black person. A lot of "being black" is based on how you look. We learned this in class that many people who look like they are white actually have a lot of black ancestry. My family is mostly white but, i have cousins that get really dark in the summer and are constantly mistaken for being black.
We have learned in class that many of the typical stereotypes about the way races act are wrong. People need to be educated on the real statistics so that they can make assumptions and judgements based on facts. Also, for things that don't matter that may be offensive, people should just let it go. Like this notion that all black people are loud. How does it benefit you to have that knowledge or share it? The only thing it can do is offend people and burn bridges for the person jumping to these conclusions. The world would be a better place if people would just not make pointless assumptions.
I believe that we as people have the ability to make the conscious choice to stop judging people and creating conflicts where it is unnecessary . This only causes conflicts that are not healthy for a growing society. We don't have to wait for evolution to kill off the people that create these conflicts.We have the ability to educate and change the generation now.
I think that the initial question asked here is irrelevant. It should matter whether it's looks or how people act that determines someone's race. This is because different races shouldn't matter anymore as I mentioned earlier. Other than helping you socialize there is little advantage to being able to determine someone's race. Also, as I mentioned earlier people judge what race my family is by the way they look. Most people seem to look first and then adjust later if the people they are judging act differently than they expect.
At the same time in an ideal world there would be no social advantage to determining someone's race. This is not an ideal world and being able to relate with people builds strong groups. Strong groups leads ti better lifestyles for their members.

In regards to the first question, I don't believe it is possible to convince everyone that all people are created equal. That being sad, I do believe that if black people were given all of the same freedoms as whites, black people would have been thought of as equals by the majority of the population sooner. I also believe we would be dealing with less black people that are racist against white people. The fact that the civil rights movement had to occur for more equal treatment powered some of the racism against white people today. The people involved in the movement had to stand up for themselves and retaliate against the injustices that they faced. They taught their children to do so and their children passed it down. It seems to have gotten to the point where some black people are just easily offended about their race and will have no trouble confronting people about it. I believe as time goes on this will continue to improve as it is currently. People as a whole will essentially forget their differences. They won't have to feel defensive anymore about what happened in the past.
This directly relates to the second question. I don't believe there is anything wrong with the black people meet website. The fact that it is popular enough for commercials shows the racism behind it. This is because there is that many black people using it and supporting it that it is more popular than the website white people meet. More black people think that they are better than white people in a sense. The people that visit these websites are narrowing their potentially dates down to only their race. This is prejudice.
Scholarships are an entirely different subject. Giving people scholarships and jobs based on race rather than qualification is very racist. It is not right to justify giving a black person a scholarship because there are more black people that are poor rather than white people. This is because you are giving an individual the advantage. This should be based on the individual not the entire race. that individual may or may not come from a family that needs that scholarship for him to go to school. You also can't peg companies or schools for being racist when they enroll less black people than white people. That is the way it would be if everyone had fair treatment in most cases, because there are more white people than black people in america. So giving a small ethnic group scholarships or job promotions to have more of them in your school or office is incredibly racist. Many companies and schools do it to prove that they are not racist and our government backs it. Our government gives tax breaks to companies that hire employees from small ethnic groups.People of minority groups should not get the same advantage, by the government, as people that are mentally disabled.. but they do. People that are mentally disabled need the help because they can't meet all of the job qualifications. People of a minority can.
If an employer is racist and only hires people of a certain ethnic background then they should be punished. They should not however, have to live in fear of being accused of being racist because they don't have enough minorities working for them. This happened with a small construction company that a friend of mine works for. There was a black man working for them and he wasn't doing the work that he was required to do. They fired him and he threatened to sue the company for being racist. To avoid the bad publicity the company's lawyers advised them to hire him back. That is unfair because everyone at the job site where he is working has to pick up the slack for the work that he is not doing.